Whatgenerallymakesamanlie，andhowislyingtobemadeunpleasant?Byrigorouslyfixingourmindsateverypointonsuchissues，wefindthatmanyquestionsadmitofveryplainanswers，andaresurprisedtodiscoverwhatamassofobscurityhasbeendispelled。Itis，however，truethatalthoughthevalueofthemethodcanhardlybedeniedunlesswedenythevalueofallexperienceandcommonsense，wemaydisputethedegreeinwhichitconfirmsthegeneralprinciple。EverystepseemstoBenthamtoreflectadditionallightuponhisprimaryaxiom。Yetitispossibletoholdthatwitnessesshouldbeencouragedtospeakthetruth，andthatexperiencemayhelpustodiscoverthebestmeanstothatendwithout，therefore，admittingtheuniquevalidityofthe’greatesthappiness’principle。Thatprinciple，sofarastrue，maybeitselfadeductionfromsomehigherprinciple；andnophilosopherofanyschoolwoulddenythat’utility’shouldbeinsomewayconsultedbythelegislator。
ThebookillustratesthenextcriticalpointinBentham’ssystem——thetransitionfromlawtopolitics。HewaswritingthebookattheperiodwhenthefailureofthePanopticonwascallinghisattentiontothewickednessofGeorgeIIIandLordEldon，andwhentheEnglishdemandforparliamentaryreformwasrevivingandsupplyinghimwithasympatheticaudience。Now，inexaminingthetheoryofevidenceupontheplandescribed，Benthamfoundhimselfateverystageinconflictwiththeexistingsystem，orrathertheexistingchaosofunintelligiblerules。Englishlawyers，hediscovered，hadworkedoutasystemofrulesforexcludingevidence。Sometimesthecausewaspureindolence。’Thisman，wereItohearhim，’saystheEnglishjudge，’wouldcomeoutwithaparceloflies。Itwouldbeaplaguetohearhim：Ihaveheardenoughalready；shutthedoorinhisface。’66*But，asBenthamshowswithelaboratedetail，areasonforsuspectingevidenceisnotareasonforexcludingit。Aconvictedperjurergivesevidence，andhasapecuniaryinterestintheresult。Thatisexcellentgroundforcaution；butthefactthatthemanmakesacertainstatementmaystillbeahelptotheascertainmentoftruth。Whyshouldthathelpberejected?Benthamscarcelyadmitsofanyexceptiontothegeneralruleoftakinganyevidenceyoucanget——oneexceptionbeingtherathercuriousoneofconfessiontoaCatholicpriest；secrecyinsuchcasesisonthewhole，hethinks，useful。Heexposestheconfusionimpliedinanexclusionofevidencebecauseitisnotfullytrustworthy，whichisequivalenttoworkinginthedarkbecauseapartiallightmaydeceive。Butthisisonlyapartofawholesystemofarbitrary，inconsistent，andtechnicalrulesworkedoutbytheingenuityoflawyers。Besidesthedirectinjurytheygaveendlessopportunityforskilfulmanoeuvringtoexcludeoradmitevidencebyadoptingdifferentformsofprocedure。Ruleshadbeenmadebyjudgesastheywerewantedandprecedentsestablishedofcontradictorytendencyanduncertainapplication。Benthamcontraststhesimplicityoftherulesdeduciblefrom’utility’withtheamazingcomplexityofthetraditionalcodeoftechnicalrules。Underthe’natural’system，thatofutility，youhavetodealwithaquarrelbetweenyourservantsorchildren。Yousendatonceforthedisputants，confrontthem，takeanyrelevantevidence，andmakeupyourmindastotherightsofthedispute。Incertaincasesthis’natural’procedurehasbeenretained，as，forexample，incourtsmartial，whererapiddecisionwasnecessary。
Hadthetechnicalsystemprevailed，thecountrywouldhavebeenruinedinsixweeks。67*Buttheexposureofthetechnicalsystemrequiresanelaboratedisplayofintricatemethodsinvolvingateverystepvexation，delay，andinjustice。Benthamreckonsupnineteenseparatedevicesemployedbythecourts。
Hedescribestheelaborateprocesseswhichhadtobegonethroughbeforeahearingcouldbeobtained；thedistanceofcourtsfromthelitigants；thebandyingofcasesfromcourttocourt；thechicaneriesaboutgivingnotice；
thefrequentnullificationofallthathadbeendoneonaccountofsometechnicalflaw；theunintelligiblejargonofLatinandLaw-Frenchwhichveiledtheproceedingsfromthepublic；theelaboratemysteriesof’specialpleading’；